Lone Picketing a Remote Scientology Cabana in South Dakota

Mildly funny video of an anon picketing a lone Scientology cabana in South Dakota. If true...

Anonymous Getting Ready for the Aug. 8 Big Opening Day

August 8 is the big day for Anonymous. No, I am not referring to the Olympics. I am referring to their claims that they basically will resume their hacking-style attacks against the CoS on that date. They call this "Phase III".

Phase I was supposedly their first wave of DDOS attack against the Scientology web sites, their Pizza prank calls, and the rest in the 4chan panoply. Phase II was supposedly their waves of massive protests. And now Phase III, well, we will see.

In the meantime they are putting their artillery in place, as can be seen by this post in ARS. It asks people to keep a certain page open in the background, it supposedly being the "Chanology Phase III live update page". In reality it contains code that apparently will unwittingly turn your computer into a relay point for DDoS attack.

Anonymous Getting Desperate

Anonymous is getting desperate in view of the dwindling numbers and them being ignored by the press. The trend I already pointed out learning of the Aug 16 theme, "The Return of the Lulz", is being confirmed by two subsequent videos.

The first one, entitled "Reclamation : Phase Three", wants to get channers back and dissociate themselves with tory-like influences that "polluted" project chanology. It also marks a return to possibly illegal and questionable activities such as the ones they engaged in "Phase I" (hacking web sites, prank calls, etc), which anon says will start on August 8 (bad timing if they want media attention, as this is the date of Olympics opening).

Obviously, these elements of anons have decided that the cause for the dwindling number is a disinterest from original channers mostly motivated by Lulz. They want to get them back to get the numbers up again, and so have made a sort of internal purge in the hope that discarding the minority, blamed for the protests failure, will bring back the majority. They also hope that getting into hacking-style activities again will bring back the media attention they enjoyed at the start.

The response however has not been the one they expected, and has created more dissent and schisms from within the movement. So much so that Anonymous had to issue a second video, entitled "Anonymous Message to Allies". In this video, they claims that anybody is still welcome to the protests in spite of activities from the "dark side" of Anonymous that may be pursued in parallel.

The date of August 8, eight days before the protest on August 16, is most probably chosen to get back media attention through hacking-style activities before the protest, and the subsequent hope that this will motivate people to attend the protests again.

By all means, Anonymous feels they have nothing to lose. Their current rating is at an all time low. They have to do something drastic to get the movement going again.

Pity that this something drastic is not an escalate in the quality of their understanding the larger issue, which would bring them to demonstrate about things like the German discrimination in parallel to their demonstration against Scientology. Quite on the contrary, they showed that they in fact support the German discrimination, so it is hardly surprising that the only drastic change they can bring about is one akin to terrorist tactics.

I hardly think that this approach will bring them anything positive. They will just confirm what the CoS and some media accuse them of being, they will increase the schism and division among themselves, and the whole movement may be brought to a halt.

This may be a fitting end to a movement that turned out to be an Internet mob reaction rather than, as the Maxim article has it, "A new dawn of social protest". Much more fitting is a quote from the excellent New York Times article:

"Technology, apparently, does more than harness the wisdom of the crowd. It can intensify its hatred as well."

Jeff Hawkins

chuckbeatty77 posted a comment on my entry about the Ex-Scientologists New Web Site, asking me to "Please do a posting on Jeff Hawkins and Mark Headley".

I fail to see how this is relevant to the post in question but I guess he wants to know what is my take on these two.

Frankly speaking, as of now, I have no real idea who they are. All I have time to do currently is to try to keep up with the news and I don't have time to go into the details of everything.

Nevertheless, I was curious and so I fired my Google on the first name and checked the first ten entries on Jeff Hawkins Scientology.

Apparently, Jeff Hawkins was a high-ranking Sea Org member who has been declared SP and has quit Scientology. He now writes a book about his past 35 years in the movement, which book is availabe online as a blog.

Interestingly, Jeff refers to his story as "counterfeit dreams", being similar in that with the title of my own story, "everybody has a dream, but everyone needs to wake up". We seem to be on the same foot on that one.

However, he does write much better than I. That's an understatement. He is an extraordinary writer, and his story reads like a novel. Of course his level of experience in the movement is much more extended than mine as well.

So far so good. As of now, his story is tl;dr for me to read, but he does look sincere and as long as there are no red alerts ringing as I read, I am always willing to give people the benefit of doubt when they write their story. I am even willing to assume as true for now his claim that he and others have been beaten up by DM. So, until I find the time to read his story and listen to his radio interviews (that may not be soon :-(), I am going to reserve my opinion on this matter.

However, there is something else that struck me as I was scanning the first ten Google entries.

Most of these are made of forums references commenting on his book/blog. The comments are universally positive. except for ARS.

This is to be expected. So-called critical forums such as the Operation Clambake Forum (OCMB), Enturbulation.org forum, and the Ex-Scientologists Message board are moderating out dissent under one pretense or another and therefore are hardly interesting to read, most opinions being aligned in the same direction.

ARS is a different matter. ARS is totally unmoderated, and this is usually where you get the real picture, and it so happens that the thread in ARS on Jeff Hawkins appears in the Google top ten, and so I got to read it.

Why is this interesting? Because this is where you can see Jeff (and other critics), dealing with actual dissent, and this is one of the things that speaks the loudest about their current state of cultic mindset, and therefore the credibility of the rest of whatever they may be saying.

For example, Magoo, is a long-time ex-member who have some interesting things to say about Scientology and is quite good at giving out public speeches. However, she long time ago discredited herself in my eyes because she would take little responsibility for her carelessness with facts, and because her reaction to her critics is to cry "OSA, OSA, Bill Yaude, OSA". This eventually even led her to lose her celebrity status with Anonymous who won't be spreading her videos anymore. A counter example to that would be David Mayo, who always displayed intelligence and openness towards his critics.

You can write chapters and books, and give interviews and demonstrate in the street, but if through actual challenge all you display is basically the same fanatical and cultic mindset as the one you were in while in Scientology, what's the point? It just shows that you didn't really learn anything from your experience, so why would anything you may write about interesting at all?

Unfortunately, for the very little he dabbled in ARS, Jeff did not fare that good so far. However, I am going to dismiss it for now as just a newbie thing. I don't have enough material as yet to make a final judgment, but, Jeff, if you happen to read this, please think about all of this.

The thread in ARS is here. It starts out as in the other fora, but, unlike these, of course, we very soon get a dissenting opinion, that of one "Tom Newton".

Tom questions the validity of what Jeff writes about DM beating up people, asks where is this substantiated, and why he did not file in a criminal complain or a civil suit.

Of course, Tom is going much further than that and does engage in a whole range of cultic behavior himself, accusing Jeff of lying and being in league with Anonymous, but nevertheless some of his points are valid, namely the question of substantiation.

Jeff Hawkins replies as "Fishdaddy". He does not really address Tom's main questions, but goes on to ask him his real name. This of course is irrelevant, especially in a world of "Anonymous" all around claiming that personalities are not important, only content is... But the worst is still to come.

Though ARS isn't moderated, dissenters are heavily trashed, randomly accused of being trolls and OSA agents and other "circle jerks" not worth listening to. We thus soon get very quickly as well this sort of cultic answer that has done so much to discredit critics, from one "Out_Of_The_Dark" (out of the dark, yeah, right...):

"He does this to anyone of merit here, Jeff. His real name is Alan Conners and he's a well known usenet kook most likely hired to 'dead agent' and distract readers. he;s turned down various offers to meet up with critics and get the facts but that is just not a part of his agenda. As a consequence, most here just ignore him "

There is of course not a shred of evidence to show that Tom Newton is Alan Conners, but this is an "ARS fact" that is routinely being repeated and presented as something established. It is almost certainly false, but it does not seem to matter much for so-called critics. As long as they are able to repeat it ad nauseum , it is going to be true...

Tom Newton appears simply to be someone who does not reconcile what he reads in ARS with the Scientologists he personally knows and who questions the whole Anonymous thing. He does often launches himself in unwarranted accusations but also does point at time to legitimate questions, and more importantly, is one of the few dissenting voice remaining in ARS. By all means, who he is is not even relevant. It does not change the question or the arguments being made.

What does Jeff do in regards to the supposedly out of the dark poster's "information"? He buys the black PR as-is and does not question anything! Oh, that's his real name? Right... He is a troll and an OSA agent, ok, I understand now, I will not be paying attention to him anymore nor address any of the legitimate questions or objections he may have...

Yeah right...

This is foolish, but as I said, I'll forgive that behavior for now as a newbie thing. However, if this is the type of reaction that repeats itself, I may not even be interested to start reading his story at all.

As for chuckbeatty77 who asked me to make an entry for Jeff Hawkins, I am rather disappointed with his reaction in this ARS thread too, though I am not going to pass judgment either until I see this as a pattern. He goes right off and accuses Tom Newton of being OSA. Now, with all due respect, this is stupid, Chuck. You write:

"My thoughts are there's a crew of skilled persons with conveniently plausible "nutjob" valences who are encouraged to keep ARS all weird and unattractive to prevent really helpful ex members like you from discoursing here."

Let me tell you that the people who keep ARS all weird and unattractive are people unable to address dissent in any meaningful way other than trying to dismiss them as troll or OSA agent. Even if Tom Newton was an OSA agent it would still not matter - just address whatever arguments he is making.

This knee-jerk reaction to a simple dissenting comment is the kind of things that very badly reflects on critics, and does more damage to whatever Jeff Hawkins may be writing of value than anything else.

Rather than start to accuse me of being an OSA agent myself (it has been done plenty of time before and still continues), you Chuck and Jeff and anybody else who may turn out to be reasonable critics would do well to consider my friendly advices - address dissent as you would expect a non-cultist and reasonable person to do. Address content and stop building up and promoting conspiracy theories to "explain" dissent away, because eventually it is only going to make you look like conspiracy kooks, and this does no good for whatever else of value you may be saying.

Two Frivolous Law Suits

Two frivolous law suits have made the news recently.

1. The first one, filed on July 15, 2008, is by former Scientologist Peter Letterese who alleges that Scientology was operating like a "syndicate" and that David Miscavige is "aided and abetted by the actions of Tom Cruise". The suit is so ridiculous that even critics admit that it is likely to be dismissed by the court before any defendant even responds. Because Tom Cruise has been named in the suit, however, the news led to several articles.
   
   
2. The second one, filed on July 18, 2008, is by one Jonathan Elliott who basically claims that his talent agency failed because Scientology owns the entire entertainment industry!

Even paranoid Lerma admits the two suits are so silly that they are in fact Scientology fronts to make critics look bad - yeaaaah, Right! As if kooks and opportunists could not be just kooks and opportunists - they really have to be Scientology front!

Anonymous Supports Discrimination in Germany

By it's own creed, Anonymous should be against the German discrimination towards Scientology, and in fact should even demonstrate masked against it.

It has been obvious however, through various signs, that this is not the case, and that Anonymous in fact supports that discrimination.

To now make this completely clear and un-mistakable, one should see how they boast and cheer about the fact that they have been invited at an official anti-Scientology event by the anti-Scientology group lead by Ursula Caberta.

Check out the news announcement (together with the supporting comments) and the thread in enturbulation.org about it.

It just goes to show that the members of this dying movement (Anonymous) have no clue whatsoever and that their protests, through mere lack of any sophistication and any quality researches, are doomed to fail.

I still maintain that Anonymous makes a major mistake in associating themselves with government oppression towards an unpopular religion, and this cheering at an official invitation is a further nail in their coffin.

Organized Religions Lag Behind Scientology on Internet

This opinion article claims that Scientology web sites, with their sophistication and the fact it offers a personally test that relates to young people needs, is more potent than what traditional religions have currently. It claims it had to develop this sophistication as a result of negative articles from the media.

It is a pretty weak argument. People may check the CoS pages but if they check the Internet they will also see floods of negative information about Scientology. I am not sure that the sophistication of CoS pages alone can make people forget that flood of negative information, but the thought is an interesting one.

Scientology approach towards the media, and this would include the Internet, is never defend only attack. By that, it means it does not argue with opponents but just dismiss them on the whole. I must admit Scientology critics themselves do a good job of discrediting themselves through the gross claims they are making. This may indeed make people who see through their propaganda vulnerable to Scientology arguments.

I still don't think this is what is happening on the whole but a good case could be made that it is possible, at least in some cases.

New York Times - First Hand Report in Anonymous' Entrails

The New York Times has published an outstanding article, "The Trolls Among Us", that goes much further than the recent articles about 4chan published by the Wall Street Journal and the Guardian. It is a first-hand researched article where the author actually lived with the major hackers and channers for days to get into the whole scene.

Unlike the Maxim article, you won't find it much promoted by Anonymous because in fact it is quite damaging for them.

Some quotes:

"/b/ is the designated “random” board of 4chan.org, a group of message boards that draws more than 200 million page views a month"

"A post consists of an image and a few lines of text"

"Almost everyone posts as “anonymous""

"In effect, this makes /b/ a panopticon in reverse — nobody can see anybody, and everybody can claim to speak from the center""

"The anonymous denizens of 4chan’s other boards — devoted to travel, fitness and several genres of pornography — refer to the /b/-dwellers as “/b/tards."

"Measured in terms of depravity, insularity and traffic-driven turnover, the culture of /b/ has little precedent"

"/b/ reads like the inside of a high-school bathroom stall, or an obscene telephone party line, or a blog with no posts and all comments filled with slang that you are too old to understand."

"“You look for someone who is full of it, a real blowhard. Then you exploit their insecurities to get an insane amount of drama, laughs and lulz."

"Among /b/’s more interesting spawn is Anonymous, a group of masked pranksters who organized protests at Church of Scientology branches around the world"

"Technology, apparently, does more than harness the wisdom of the crowd. It can intensify its hatred as well."

"After all, I was examining a subculture that is built on deception and delights in playing with the media"

"Does free speech tend to move toward the truth or away from it?"

"When does it evolve into a better collective understanding?"

"Is the effort to control what’s said always a form of censorship, or might certain rules be compatible with our notions of free speech?"

"One promising answer comes from the computer scientist Jon Postel, now known as “god of the Internet” for the influence he exercised over the emerging network"

"In 1981, he formulated what’s known as Postel’s Law: “Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others.”

"Originally intended to foster “interoperability,” the ability of multiple computer systems to understand one another,"

"To build a robust global network with no central authority, engineers were encouraged to write code that could “speak” as clearly as possible yet “listen” to the widest possible range of other speakers"

"The human equivalent of this robustness is a combination of eloquence and tolerance"

"the spirit of good conversation"

"Trolls embody the opposite principle"

"They are liberal in what they do and conservative in what they construe as acceptable behavior from others"

"It’s tempting to blame technology, which increases the range of our communications while dehumanizing the recipients."

The Power of Lulz

The new August 16 protest of Anonymous seems to be called "The Power of Lulz", and is sub-titled "Anonymous takes back chanology".

The way I interpret this is as follows: Anonymous tries to boost up the dwingling numbers by getting back to its chan roots, do it for the lulz, and "takes back" the channel after the Tory/Magoo incident.

There is something ironic in promoting lulz and at the same time promoting Scientology with accusatory signs of "Scientology Kills", backed up by conspiracy theories....

Anyway, that guy on the video above really can dance and it's a fun video, and the music is nice too.

By the way, I believe that dancer is MGB, the guy who was manhandled by Tommy Gorman and who was at the origin of the whole Tory/Magoo debacle. Now that's a prime pick for leading the "take back chanology" theme of the Aug. 16 protest...

Russel Brand Forbidden from Mentioning Scientology

"BRITISH comedian Russell Brand, known for his controversial way with words, has been banned from making certain jokes when he hosts the MTV Video Music Awards.

The British comic has been warned by show bosses there are specific things he definitely can't say.

He explained: "I've been warned when I'm presenting there are two things I'm never allowed to say.

"One - C*** and two - Scientology.

"There is one sentence that could join both of those words but I'm going to try and not say it."

Russell is worried he will not be able to control his mischievous instincts.

He added to Britain's Daily Mirror newspaper: "I have a real problem when people tell me not to do something.

Now this is quite strange that MTV would single out Scientology as a word not to say along with the C word. I am not sure whether this is something that reflects positively or negatively on our favorite cult.

Maybe the Americans are being over-cautious but Russell does have history with MTV. He was sacked from the station after turning up for work on September 12, 2001, dressed as Osama bin Laden.

Anyway, I have been sampling a few news stories and I must say this Russel Brand character is quite a hoot. First his hair. Then his Manson-look. Then some downright funny comments. For example:

"When I was going to meet the Queen of England, the protocol people told me how to bow, not to curtsy and not to speak until I was spoken to. But all I could think of was, 'Grab her tits.' "

Thankfully Russell managed to control his urge and the royal bosom remained untouched.

After having earned a scholarship to The Drama Centre in London and being subsequently expelled for misbehaving, Brand said:

"I was a drug addict. I used to smash stuff up, cry, take drugs while at school, I had a mouse live in my hair, broke school property - I was a whirlwind of annoyance. They tolerated it for three years because the work was good but at the end, due to various afflictions and addictions, it deteriorated and I was slung out."

Joking at his good fortune for being named host of the MTV award show, Brand said:

"I'm planning to have lesbian kisses with Britney and Madonna individually. It's not going to be easy, what with my genitals, but I will try."

Brand, who won rave reviews for his performance in comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall, is welcoming the opportunity to get his raising star in the US raise further:

"People say you must enjoy it that no one knows you're famous in America but I hate it. Without fame, this haircut makes me look like someone with a mental illness. I want everyone to know who I am. I have to carry a laptop around with me so I can explain I am a celebrity."

Will he be able to control his impulses? Nothing is so sure. Recently, Russell Brand had to apologise for phoning the police with false information about a sex attacker during a stand-up show in Northampton, UK. However, he said it had been a "spontaneous and impulsive thing" to do, which is why he says he cannot promise not to do it again.

"You can never rule that out, that's the nature of spontaneity, things just sometimes happen."

The MTV Video Music Awards will be held in Los Angeles on September 7.

Quote of the Day

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/1bfb517b11743bd5

"After all, how could a bunch of teenagers who'd never heard of Scientology until a few months ago possibly not easily destroy an organisation which has been around for decades, with tens of thousands of dedicated grownup members and many millions of dollars in the bank? "Piece of cake", as Lafayette R. Hubbard would say.

Sorry, I may have misplet 'cake'."

Another Invasion of Privacy by Anonymous

"AngryGayPope" films Scientologists as they enter their building, then posts the result on the Internet asking people to identify them.


Related blog entries: R-InvasionOfPrivacy-

Rolling Eyes and Getting to See the Light

One of the nice folks over at ESK wrote something about me that I feel is quite correct.

Critics often accuse me of being OSA or some sort of disguised/deluded Scientology agent because of my critical stance towards critics. It does not matter much to them that I am also critical of Scientology. In fact, some of them, such as paranoid Lerma, claim that this is only a "cover" to better entrap unsuspecting victims.

The fact is, however, that precisely because I take the stance I do towards critics, some Scientology members will read my pages, including its critical content towards Scientology, whereas they won't read other critical pages, and this may start them consider critical aspects of Scientology they would not otherwise. By agreeing with me on the exaggerations and abuses of critics, what I critically write about Scientology is more credible to them, especially since such criticism is reasoned, based on my own thought process upon leaving, and not wild accusations.

What happens is in fact the exact opposite than what Lermaloons claim. One needs to be quite paranoid and cultish to think that my site is a malicious and clever setup by the CoS. I just write things as I see it and as I feel correct. To think that any criticism of critics is automatically an OSA operation is quite cultic by itself, as if this kind of criticism could not be valid on its own and evaluated as such.

I thus receive from time to time emails from Scientology members thanking me for helping them to get to see the negative side of Scientology through my web site - precisely through its combination of reasonable criticism, allied with exposing the exaggerations, myths and abuses on the critics' side.

But you don't have to take my word for it, here you have a statement on a public forum.

Note - I would agree that sometimes even reasonable critics reading my site, and especially my blog where I write without giving much thought to it, may legitimately "roll eyes", and sometimes I wish I had the luxury of time to better qualify and nuance my writings, but nevertheless, the fact of Scientologists opening up as described does happen, and critics should do well to consider this angle rather than trying to dead-agent me with all kinds of rather silly cultic rationalizations:

"I'm not Bernie and don't know him, just know some of the back history. Like I said, he has been accused of being an OSA op and cult apologist many many times. I happen to think that despite his criticism of the critics -- in fact, because of it -- his site can be useful for Scnists getting out of CofS.

I think that because when I was getting out, I read every page of his site. Because he was willing to "look at both sides", at the time I found his criticism to be especially potent - far, far more creditable than a.r.s for instance which was so full of vitriol I didn't care for reading it.

Nowadays I roll my eyes and would heavily debate a lot of his points, but I still think it makes a good transition point for CofSers who may be testing the waters on the outside, even if they're fairly indoctrinated.

I don't think it's an op because it's been going on so long, and while the CofS may have once been capable of such sophistication as the infiltration you describe, nothing the CofS has done in relation to the internet in general has shown me that they are still so capable.

When he put up his page, the CofSes general "handling" for the internet was to try to remove the a.r.s. newsgroup, fill it with sporgeries, and put up spam pages. I just don't see them putting up a site that is even remotely critical of CofS, especially not at that time. But I'll allow that I could be wrong. "

Six Months into the Protests

Anonymous has a video on Youtube, six months after their initial video. While this may seem a sort of six month reports on the part of Anonymous, I believe the video is a sort of fake. Not that it is not from some anons, but it does not have the elevation of the other Anonymous announcements, such as the original video above, or the recent announcement concerning Tory/Magoo.

What is more, while the original video of Anonymous had 2 million views virtually overnight, the present one barely passed the 2,000 bar after more than 3 days. This either reflects its fake nature, or reflects more than anything the tremendous fail of Anonymous effort over the past six month. I am going to be generous and vote for the first alternative: that it simply is a fake.

This being said, we can check out the claims being made in this video as a measure of six months effort. As I said, they are voiced in a petty way, such as "Oh! By the way... how are your booksales going?" - this simply is not the style of the original Anonymous. Nevertheless, let's check them out:

1. PR Nightmare The initial and sudden rush of nearly 9,000 anons members from the Feb. and Mar. protests all over the world was indeed spectacular and phenomenal. What is more, nobody knew where these people came from. They seemed to emerge from the Internet made visible. This remains the "Epic Win" of Anonymous, and will probably remain so down history.
   
   However, as I wrote on my web page when these protests started, the big weakness of Anonymous was that they brought nothing new to the arguments that have been made before hand (apart for a weak claim to dissociate Scientology and the CoS). Much of it being culled from the "old guard" (OG) critics page, much of it outdated (Operation Snow White, more than 30 years ago!), and much of it debunked, even if the Old Guard keeps on repeating their lies as if nothing happened (Scientology Kills, McPherson, Keith Henson, etc).
   
   As a result, the numbers dipped. People lost interest. Many realized that their initial assumptions about Scientology weren't true, or at least weren't as bad as they thought, and certainly not as bad to sacrifice more interesting lulz on the Internet. Anonymous also made the mistake to moderate its fora and lost quite a few members who became disappointed with anons free speech stance.
   
   Aiming at the decrease in the numbers of Scientologists, Anonymous was the one to suffer a total stats crash, not Scientology. The numbers as of July 12 are a ripples to what they used to be. Their National/International DC event was a disaster, and their latest actions have left the press completely indifferent.
   
   After six months of protests, Scientology is still around, and they are stronger than ever. Why? Because they survived Anonymous onslaught, barely touched. All the CoS had to do, really, was to ignore anons, because, as I said, Anonymous slogans were old, over-used, and easily debunked.
   
   What Anonymous should have done was to protest against things like the German discrimination towards Scientology at the same time as they protest Scientology. Then they would have made their marks and brought something original. They should have seen through the OG bullshit sooner and dissociate them from their exaggerations and cultic behavior, while at the same time protesting Scientology on key points that can stand on their own rather than using the same old myths. Instead they chose to play along the OG line, a line that did not succeed to shatter Scientology for a decade and which propaganda cannot survive a more serious scrutiny. That was their mistake...
   
   
2. Surge of Press articles. There has been a few press at the start of Anonymous protests, and some article that followed later on, such as the Maxim article. However, the situation such as Anonymous describe in this video is totally untrue. Quite on the contrary, the press article got rarer and rarer and nowadays they basically died down. Anonymous big " Over 9000 anons" flop did not receive a single article, their latest taunt using little girls can't even make it to Wikipedia, because not a single serious newspapers picked it up, their latest July 12 protests are virtually ignored as well. Even on the whole of the six months, the numbers of Scientology-articles did not increase, as has been demonstrated through a search of LexisNexis.
   
   
3. Drastic actions. Anonymous claims the CoS had to resort to drastic actions to counter Anonymous. They cite the initial, later dropped, charge of a 15 years old for using the word "cult", ridiculously claiming that this was a result of bribing the police. They cite the "charging a crippled man for assault", when in fact the man in question was charged for possession of drugs, not for assault, even though it is true that this was uncovered after the man, an active critics, run over the feet of a Scientologist with his chair (probably by accident)..
   
   Though the CoS did try to defend themselves legally wherever they could, their action on the whole have on the contrary been very mild, and even at times so innocuous Anonymous had to twist reality in a ridiculous way to make themselves a victim. Check out the example of the case where they distort the words of A Scientologist to make it appear as harassment, when in fact that person was extremely motherly and patient with Anonymous. If anything, the CoS has just roundly ignored Anonymous, even though they also succeeded in many cases to push their protests farther and farther away from the CoS building itself.
   
   
4. Flyers. What I like about this is the irony of Anonymous getting mad for the CoS doing the same thing they do. They accuse the CoS of distributing "Flyers that contain fabrications, dramatised misinterpretations and slanderous falsities." Why should the CoS be deprived of its right of free speech to distribute its own version of the truth? Why is that making Anonymous so mad that they have to harass and old lady, virtually assaulting her until she found a refuge back in the CoS, and claiming that mooning her was an "Epic Win"? Why to they have to make threads claiming Scientologists distributing their flyers are "infiltrating" anonymous, when in fact they are in plain clothes, not even wearing masks, as they could in fact do? In a way, this is just too funny. Anonymous can ditch it out, but cannot take it...
   
   
5. Cut source of income. There is no evidence Scientology suffered financially from Anonymous protests. Quite on the contrary they are busy getting new quarters for themselves by buying expensive historical buildings around the world.
   
   
6. Ex-members. "Ex-members of Scientology have now come out and are speaking against you." Ex-members have always come out of Scientology and spoken against it. This is nothing new. What is more, there is no evidence that this has increased with Anonymous, or decreased, not even that anonymous was at the origin of any of those who came out during the protest period. For all I know, they may even have been less defections than before Anonymous. Anonymous, with their scary masks and their stalking of individual Scientologists, just confirms the CoS' propaganda against critics, and draws sympathy towards Scientologists from onlookers.
   
   Of course, Anonymous dreams of people rushing out of the CoS building and seeking refuge in their arms. This has not happened, and the best they could do was to decide that someone watching from a window (probably thinking what a bunch of idiots these people are) was a "crying Scientologist", all the while shouting in desperation "come, come to us, escape from the CoS". Instead, this makes me sorry for anons, because these are people really motivated in doing good and not bad people and in their delusions they really think what they do is helping to anything. Their lack of result must be very sad for them. The solution is getting to understand Scientology better, in its positive and negative aspects, not just buying into OG propaganda.
   
   
7. Charged. "When your leaders are facing a judge, being prosecuted for fraud, malpractice, criminal harassment, extortion, exploitation of children and perversion of justice, know that you've only got your greed...". Scientology has been around for more than 50 years. It has a long history of battling the society legally. Anti-cultists have already tried all they could to charge Scientology, but the CoS has won most of its legal battles. The reason critics cannot charge Scientology with all they claim it has done wrong is simply because their claims do not withstand legal scrutiny. Most of it are bloated and untrue, and all they can do is repeat them on the Internet where they find gullible people to swallow them, and to repeat them in turns in a stupid crowd phenomenon. If anything, Anonymous protests has just demonstrated that very phenomenon, just as their dwindling numbers and their failure to get any results either from within the CoS or from the legislature, shows the emptiness of their claims.
   
   Anonymous still seems to think they can bring any of the above about. Wake up Anonymous. Look beyond the OG claims. Yes, the intent was noble and commendable, and you should be proud of having mobilized yourself for a what you thought was a just cause. You have not wasted your time because you followed the noble impulses of your heart. But now, try to bring up your mind at that level too. Either step up your protest in a more intelligent way, or find something more meaningful to do.

Anonymous Wants No Heroes

For the first time Anonymous see through "Old Guard" bullshit.

Tory/Magoo is a very active and vocal Scientology critics and, though she does make a good few points, is virtually a paranoid loon who sees "OSA" and "Bill Yaude" at every corner and has repeatedly made a fool of herself accusing her critics of being OSA. I gave a very mild live example of this on this blog here. She is also loose with facts, as in a recent example when she ridiculously "felt" that a container in the wood was "full of PC folders".

For some time she has been treated as a celebrity by uncritical anons, asked for autographs and paid free trips around the world at their expenses!

Things changed, however, when her true nature came out during a confrontation in the "thunderdome", a sort of "bull baiting" place within enturbulation.org where anything goes. In spite of being fully warned about the rules, she became offended and started her litany of "OSA, OSA, Bill Yaude, OSA" against participants in the dome. Here is a good summary of what happened. The worst of course was when she incited her friend Tom Gorman, a bully and a thug, to physically threaten the person they thought was responsible for insulting her, and when she made the incredible mistake not to dissociate herself with his actions.

After much debates, Anonymous finally saw through that particular bullshit and issued an unofficial official statement to distance themselves from her. Their insight through the whole affair is remarkable, even though they still attribute the cause of her behavior to the wrong cause. It is the first time Anonymous see through the countless BS the OG is throwing at them. As such, I consider the following statement as a milestone, in par with the original Anonymous "Message to Scientology" that started it all: "

"(As a disclaimer this applies only to Tory and not to other members of the Old Gaurd. We consider each member of the OG on a case by case basis.)

Dear Tory:

We, the faceless members of anonymous do recognize and commend your years of efforts and successes in fighting the Scientology cult. We are appreciative of the support you have given to the chanology effort.

However, this does not exempt you from being responsible for your actions.

Your recent behavior concerning the Thunderdome and Tommy Gorman incidents have given us an opportunity to observe certain character traits that admittedly few of us had really suspected. Specifically, your deceitful and manipulative ways.

It is now clear to us that although you have left the Cult of Scientology and protest against them there is still far too much Hubbard Tech floating around in your brain. We could overlook this in light of your 30 years in the cult, however, we cannot overlook your utilization of tech against members of anonymous.

Specifically, you have used Dianetics against one of our members. You have lied about the situation, manipulated those who care about you, and shown a lack of remorse for anything other than getting caught. You have unrepentantly and hypocritically used the very LRH tech you claim to so abhor. This has resulted in another long time Scientology protester bullbaiting a member of anonymous and issuing threats of real life violence. This has jeopardized the movement and created numerous schisms. This is completely unacceptable. We will not forgive this, nor will we forget.

Henceforth your quasi-celebrity status within anonymous is terminated. We will no longer offer you aid in any form. The time of anonymous giving you financial aid for travel is at an end. The time of anonymous spreading your videos and story virally is at an end. The time of Anonymous spreading the red carpet to you wherever you go is at an end. At this time no apology or restitution is possible nor desired. You have already wasted your oppurtunity to make amends for deadagenting an Anonymous. Your pathetic attempts at a weak and insincere apology smacks of attempts to "sweep this under the rug". This is a tactic utilized by Scientologists, not by anonymous. Your belated apology is moreover an insult to the intellect of rational people.

You are still welcome to appear at Anonymous protests and pickets and we will not ask you to leave. You are a useful tone 40 face for the media, (although not the only one in the LA area) and we recognize that. However, we recommend that in your future contacts with the media you learn to keep your story straight. Instead of being a beloved person to us, you are now just a resource, and one that must be monitored carefully. Your actions have caused this outcome, and nothing else.

In recognition of your long years of campaigning against the Scientology cult we issue you this fair warning. Should you ever seek to persecute, manipulate, or request money from Anonymous ever again we shall call down the full power of the Internet haet machine upon you. You needn't doubt the veracity of this statement. Our more chaotic elements (the *chans especially) would consider you to be the juiciest lulzcow to be offered up in some time.You are a juicy target because you possess an overinflated sense of self-importance combined with paranoia and over-reactionary ways, traits that are prevalent within the cult of Scientology. We respectfully suggest that you seek professional help in properly deprogramming yourself, as it appears
you still have a long way to go before you can declare yourself healthy. Else, you may one day learn the true meaning behind many of our "lulzier" slogans.

Sincerely,
Anonymous"